uhhhhhhhh, because you're Frosty and only things like that happen to you? just a thought ...........

Um, no.  Next.

i get my new computer Monday win 7 pro, 8gb of ram to. been using a imac on bootcamp running xp since my other computer stopped being great 4 years ago. anyone want an ati radeon x800x ?

i been using xp 64bit when it was released, then vista 64, then win7 64... 32bit needs to go away already

Well, around 2001, they have try it with the IA-64 architecture ( itanium ) who is really the pure 64 bit evolution of the IA-32 ( other name are i386, x86-32, x86, etc )...

With IA-64, pure 64 bits code was very very fast... and emulated IA-32 code was slower that on native 32 bits computer...

Users Joe have refuse the IA-64 processor because 32 bit code was slower... so, x86-64 was created for please Joe user... x86-64 have the only advantage to run 32 bit code at a normal speed, 64 bit code is slower that on IA-64 architecture...

Consumer have make they choice... by refusing the IA-64 and choosing x86-64, they have choose for more poor performance in pure 64 bits but 100% compatibility/speed with 32 bits mode... the real 64 bit revolution was in 2001 but these was missed due to consumer choice... x86-32 and x86-64 are both based on x86 technology... something from the previous millenium... now, it will take years before anyone (dev and material ) take again the risk to make something pure 64 bits...

Maybe it will be better to first remove the 16 bits support before the 32 bits !!! Windows 7 ( 3 top version ) have always a 16 bit mode in the xp emulation thing !!!

Other name for IA64=expensive junk

Even supercomputers aren't using it.  http://www.top500.org/stats/list/36/procfam

The Cell architecture shows more promise than IA64 ever did, and outside of the PS3 its been pretty well ignored also.

I'll upgrade to 64bit Win7 when the opportunity comes. I have a Pentium D 3.2ghz Machine running Win-7 32 with a NVIDIA GS 8800 graphics card.

I can run mass effect, Sins, SC2, Farcry 2, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Crysis etc.

It works perfectly for what I want to do with it. Do I want Sins or other applications to be written in 64 bit? You better believe I do! Once the market transfers over, and there is a product that is 64 bit that I want, I'll upgrade, not before however. I've got too many student loans to try to pay back first.

I like having access to all my RAM!!!

Win 7 64 bit rocks!!

If you are not running Android yet please do so soon.

Well, in june 2004, there was 84 itanium system in the top 500, one being in the second position... and it have decline since... Windows server 2008 was the last windows system to support the itanium, like Ubuntu LTS 10.04 or red hat 5... in fact, only HP OS continue to support it...

It was not junk... performance was (very ) poor only in 32 bit mode... but 64 bit was very fast... It doesn't matter how good the IA64 architecture is, customers want to run their existing applications, most of which are compiled for x86 and don't come with source code. That leaves you with emulation, which i doubt Intel could make faster than native... Intel can't move to a new architecture because they are held back by all the millions of closed source applications out there.

simply remember that x86 architecture is from 1978 !!! All the new thing are only extension from these original x86... not really something who can lead to top performance due to the backward compatibility... these extension are something like the option for a car... usualy, option make a car better but it become a time that option will not be enough and that a new type of car will be needed... since 1978, the following extension was added to x86 architecture : x87, IA-32, P6, MMX, SSE, SSE2, x86-64, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, SSE5, AVX .

Anyway, history repeat itself... intel have launch the first real 32 bit processor 1981 with a new architecture called iAPX 432... customer have not like it because it was incompatible with the 8086... one year later, the 80286 was released... a x86 architecture with a 32 bits extension...

The first time that consumer was able to choose between 32 bits and real 64 bits was in 1989...

We now had two very powerful chips that we were introducing at just about the same time: the 486, largely based on CISC technology and compatible with all the PC software, and the i860, based on RISC technology, which was very fast but compatible with nothing. We didn't know what to do. So we introduced both, figuring we'd let the marketplace decide. ...

Well, we already know the choice of the marketplace : the 486 !!!  And the i860 was not bad :

All of the buses were at least 64 bits wide. The internal memory bus to the cache, for instance, was 128 bits wide. Both units had thirty-two 32-bit registers, but the FPU used its set as sixteen 64-bit registers. Instructions for the ALU were fetched two at a time to use the full external bus. The IEEE and Intel referred to the design as the "i860 64-Bit Microprocessor". Intel i860 instructions acted on data sizes from 8-bit through 128-bit. The graphics unit was unique for the era. It was essentially a 64-bit integer unit using the FPU registers as eight 128-bit registers. It supported a number of commands for SIMD-like instructions in addition to basic 64-bit integer math. Experience with the i860 influenced the MMX functionality later added to Intel's Pentium processors.

Yes, a 64 bits processor was released by intel in the same time that the 486...

In conclusion, several time in the computer history, customer was given the chance to choose new architecture who have can evolve further that actual processor... problem of new architecture is that it is not compatible with previous one... in all case, customer have choose the solution with the less performance but the more compatibility... in almost all the case, it is customer who have stop progress... pretty sure that the next generation of processor will be some x86-128 in place of a real fully 128 processor...

That is some mouthful. Win7 64 bit all the way!

I get the feeling I got myself into another endless conversation.  I...need to go...err...water some plants (what, it's winter?  Why doesn't anyone tell me these things? )

I'm quite happy to run it Draginol.  Do you want to post one to me?

You talk about things you have no knowledge of.

IA-64 was an attempt by intel to ditch x86 with:

1. A faster architecture (x86 is over 20 years old)

2. An architecture only they have the patents to make (with x86 they are legally bound to cross licensing deal with AMD, via, and one more company IIRC). Granting intel a pure monopoly.

However, AMD then extended x86 to 64bit (not that difficult, original x86 was 8bit, intel then extended to to 16 bit, then to 32 bit) and it overtook the market instead. (this is pretty much AMD's only innovation).

IA64 was not compatible with existing software and required everything to be ported over and recompiled, it was completely new and unsupported, more expensive, and not backwards compatible. Intel started it out in the SERVER market btw, not even making it available for home use, so it was ALSO very very expensive... and it is still around under the name itanium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium

IA = intel architecture.